I am writing to suggest that Harvard make some reference to William James' views regarding laughing gas and the 'anesthetic revelation 2 ' in your online biography of the man at
James urged philosophers to use such substances to study reality4, and Harvard's omission of that fact reads to me like academic censorship on behalf of Drug War sensibilities5. As someone who has written literally hundreds of essays on such topics, I am convinced that the Drug War ideology of substance demonization leads to suicides by denying fast-working feel-good medicine like laughing gas to the severely depressed -- under the apparent theory that suicide 6 is actually better than 'drug use.'7 In the same way, we use brain-damaging shock therapy on the depressed, apparently under the view that it is better to damage their brains than to let them use 'drugs.'8
Is this not insanity itself?
The fact is that there are hundreds of drugs that elate and inspire, some of which have almost NO addictive potential whatsoever (like the phenethylamines of Alexander Shulgin9) - and yet Drug Warriors are implicitly telling us that death is preferable to their use - death -- this despite the fact that Big Pharma drugs advertised on prime-time television report death itself as a potential side effect. Besides, surely even chemical dependency is better than the death of a suicidal individual. Americans clearly think so, insofar as 1 in 4 American women take a Big Pharma 1011 drug every day of their life.
I guess we must abide by tyrannous drug laws, but that does not mean that we have to rewrite history to make it seem like those laws are just, or that the Drug War is some sort of natural baseline from which to study mind and mood. Nothing could be further from the truth. So I urge you to revise Harvard's online biography of William James to mention his work with laughing gas .
Sincerely Yours.
PS I write because I have a suicidal relative who recently visited the ER for severe depression - and it frustrates me that the modern protocol is to withhold from her anything that would clearly work. It seems to me that the modern physician's job is first and foremost to vindicate the materialist approach to mind and mood medicine (by prescribing 'meds' inspired by the doctrines of reductionism and behaviorism) and only secondarily to help the suicidal. But the suicidal need decisive help NOW, in the form of rapid-acting elation and inspiration, not theoretical help that might kick in, more or less, in a month or two if they're lucky.
PPS I am the only philosopher who has formally protested the FDA's recent plan to treat laughing gas as a 'drug.' I did this out of respect for William James and on behalf of academic freedom. I tried to encourage some Harvard philosophers to join me, but no luck. This is why I was disturbed to see that the Harvard bio of William James does not even mention laughing gas 12 . I fear that the Drug War has led to censorship at Harvard, or at least to self-censorship.
PPPS I should add that I am a 66-year-old philosophy major and chronic depressive. I have published hundreds of philosophical essays against the War on Drugs over the last six years at abolishthedea.com. During that time, I have written hundreds of personal letters to American and British philosophers on this subject and have yet to receive a reply from any of them. It seems to be 'more than people's jobs are worth' to discuss the philosophy of drug use - or to criticize the role of materialist science when it comes to mind and mood medicine -- but if you're an exception to this rule, I invite you to visit my site. My most recent essay on these topics is entitled: 'How the Myth of Mental Illness Supports the War On Drugs'13 (link below). I share physicist David Bohm's concern that modern psychology is still under the obsolete thrall of behaviorism, thanks to which it ignores all positive uses of drugs - whether suggested by anecdote, history and/or the common-sense motivations of incentives and anticipation. In this way, our modern psychologists give a veneer of 'science' to the DEA's lie that time-honored medicines have no positive uses whatsoever, even though drugs like Soma, coca and opium 14 have helped inspire entire religions in the past1516.
You will never believe this, but Professor Nock has not yet seen fit to vouchsafe me a response viz. my scruples about Harvard censorship. To be fair, however, I imagine that he's struggling with the issue. I can sense that he is losing sleep over the implicit message that he might be sending via a non-response. "Shall I stop ghosting Brian and face Drug War censorship head on," quoth Matt, "or shall I not rather steer the course of mainstream propriety and continue pretending that Drug War prohibitions represent a natural baseline from which to study reality?"
Wait, the vision is becoming clearer. I see a wife... or a significant other of some kind... approaching our Matt.
"Stop beating yourself up," quoth he... or is it a she... or even a they? "Brian cannot expect you to discuss drug-related issues openly with him -- especially given the fact that he lacks the tenured status that, time out of mind, has constituted the minimum entry-level barrier for access to the Ivory Tower stalwart. And believe me, mister, you are as stalwart as it comes when it comes to the Ivory Tower, or my name is not..." ...whatever his or her name is, which, I cannot quite make out that level of detail in my otherwise inspired reveries. "I mean, look at you, you are chairperson of the Harvard Psychology Department, for Peter's sake!"
But what's this?
I see Matt shaking his head with doleful vigor, as who should say, "Yes, but do I deserve my status, given the fact that I am brazenly ignoring the psychoactive legacy of the very man thanks to whom I have this job?!"
It makes one feel kind of bad, to be putting our professor through this probable wringer -- to be forcing him to face these probable demons and to catechize himself in these probably derisive terms.
I'd like to become a guinea pig for researchers to test the ability of psychoactive drugs to make aging as psychologically healthy as possible. If such drugs cannot completely ward off decrepitude, they can surely make it more palatable. The catch? Researchers have to be free.
Even the worst forms of "abuse" can be combatted with a wise use of a wide range of psychoactive drugs, to combat both physical and psychological cravings. But drug warriors NEED addiction to be a HUGE problem. That's their golden goose.
Musk and co. want to make us more robot-like with AI, when they should be trying to make us more human-like with sacred medicine. Only humans can gain creativity from plant medicine. All AI can do is harvest the knowledge that eventually results from that creativity.
Properly speaking, MDMA has killed no one at all. Prohibitionists were delighted when Leah Betts died because they were sure it was BECAUSE of MDMA/Ecstasy. Whereas it was because of the fact that prohibitionists refuse to teach safe use.
"In consciousness dwells the wondrous, with it man attains the realm beyond the material, and the peyote tells us where to find it." --Antonin Arnaud
This is the problem with trusting science to tell us about drugs. Science means reductive materialism, whereas psychoactive drug use is all about mind and the human being as a whole. We need pharmacologically savvy shaman to guide us, not scientists.
If we encourage folks to use antidepressants daily, there is nothing wrong with them using heroin daily. A founder of Johns Hopkins used morphine daily and he not only survived, but he thrived.
Drug prohibition represents the biggest power grab by government in human history. It is the state control of pain relief and mental states.
The existence of a handful of bad outcomes of drug use does not justify substance prohibition... any more than the existence of drunkards justifies a call for liquor prohibition.
And we should not insist it's a problem if someone decides to use opium, for instance, daily. We certainly don't blame "patients" for using antidepressants daily. And getting off opium is easier than getting off many antidepressants -- see Julia Holland.
(up)